Appeal 2007-0245
Application 10/238,126
art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the
claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by
the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is only necessary for the claims to “‘read on’
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are
found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.” While all elements of the
claimed invention must appear in a single reference, additional references
may be used to interpret the anticipating reference and to shed light on its
meaning, particularly to those skilled in the art at the relevant time. See
Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Dart Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724, 726-727, 220
USPQ 841, 842-843 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The Examiner contends that Ayer teaches all of the limitations of
independent claim 1 and relies upon the teachings of Ayer at col. 2-3 to
teach the steps of analyzing, generating, and annotating the “selected
images” (Answer 5).
Appellant argues that Ayer does not teach “analyzing said selected
images to identify associated information” and that associated information is
used in “generating annotation information from at least one of said selected
images using said associated information” (Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4-6).
Additionally, Appellant argues that Ayer does not teach annotating multiple
selected images with the annotation information (Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 7-8).
The Examiner maintains that Ayer teaches analysis of the digital map and
extracting features of a map in order to match the feature to the image
(Answer 8-9). We cannot agree with the Examiner’s correlation of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013